|
|
|
No. 3 of Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases Tried by Chinese Courts in 2021 Published by the Supreme People's Court: Taizhou Luqiao Jili Motor Vehicle Driving Training Co., Ltd. and Taizhou Luqiao District Chengrong Driver Training Co., Ltd. v. Taizhou Luqiao District Donggang Automobile Driving Training School, Taizhou Luqiao District Zhedong Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. et al. - The case of a horizontal agreement for an "associated company in the form of driving school" (case regarding dispute over a horizontal agreement)
|
|
最高人民法院发布2021年中国法院10大知识产权案件之三：台州市路桥吉利机动车驾驶培训有限公司、台州市路桥区承融驾驶员培训有限公司与台州市路桥区东港汽车驾驶培训学校等、台州市路桥区浙东驾驶员培训服务有限公司横向垄断协议纠纷案——“驾校联营”横向垄断协议案
|
|
【法宝引证码】
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| No. 3 of Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases Tried by Chinese Courts in 2021 Published by the Supreme People's Court: Taizhou Luqiao Jili Motor Vehicle Driving Training Co., Ltd. and Taizhou Luqiao District Chengrong Driver Training Co., Ltd. v. Taizhou Luqiao District Donggang Automobile Driving Training School, Taizhou Luqiao District Zhedong Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. et al. (case regarding dispute of a horizontal agreement) - The case of a horizontal agreement for an "associated company in the form of driving school" (Civil Judgment No. 1722 [2021], Final, Civil, IP, Supreme People's Court) | | 最高人民法院发布2021年中国法院10大知识产权案件之三：台州市路桥吉利机动车驾驶培训有限公司、台州市路桥区承融驾驶员培训有限公司与台州市路桥区东港汽车驾驶培训学校等、台州市路桥区浙东驾驶员培训服务有限公司横向垄断协议纠纷案——“驾校联营”横向垄断协议案〔最高人民法院（2021）最高法知民终1722号民事判决书〕 |
| [Case Summary] | | 【案情摘要】 |
| Fifteen automobile driving training entities in Luqiao District, Taizhou City, Zhejiang Province signed a pooling agreement and a self-regulatory pact, agreeing to jointly contribute capital to form an associated company, Taizhou Luqiao District Zhedong Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Zhedong Company"), fix the price of driving training services, restrict the flow of trainer vehicles and teachers between driving training institutions, enable Zhedong Company to uniformly provide auxiliary services (such as registration, health examination, and card making) previously scattered among the 15 driving training institutions involved in the case at the same site for a service fee of 850 yuan. Article 3 of the pooling agreement specifically stipulated the registered capital and equity structure of the associated company. Among the 15 driving training entities involved in the case, Taizhou Luqiao Jili Motor Vehicle Driving Training Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Jili Company") and Taizhou Luqiao District Chengrong Driver Training Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Chengrong Company") sued in court, claiming a confirmation of the invalidity of the pooling agreement and the self-regulatory pact, on the grounds that the 15 driving training entities conducted monopolistic operations. The court of first instance only confirmed the invalidity of the clauses in the pooling agreement and the self-regulatory pact involved in the case that constituted a horizontal agreement in its first-instance judgment, on the grounds that Zhedong Company facilitated the improvement of service quality, reduction of costs, and increase in efficiency by uniformly providing previously scattered auxiliary services, that it was not improper for Zhedong Company to charge a service fee of 850 yuan, and that anti-monopoly exemption might apply to the clauses related to equity structure and the service fee in accordance with the law. Jili Company et al. filed an appeal with the Supreme People's Court, claiming a modified judgment to confirm the invalidity of the equity structure clause and service fee clause of the pooling agreement. The Supreme People's Court held at second instance that if a business that had entered into a monopoly agreement claimed the application of anti-monopoly exemption, it should provide sufficient evidence of its compliance with the relevant statutory circumstances, and should not be presumed to have an anti-monopoly exemption defense based solely on general speculation or imagination, without supporting evidence; and that contract clauses in violation of the provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law on horizontal agreements, closely related to the clauses of horizontal agreements, or serving the implementation of horizontal agreements should be invalid, and otherwise it was insufficient to eliminate and reduce the risk of monopolistic conduct. The Supreme People's Court entered a second-instance judgment, setting aside the first-instance judgment, confirming the invalidity of the pooling agreement and the self-regulatory pact involved in the case in whole. | | 浙江省台州市路桥区的十五家汽车驾驶培训单位签订联营协议及自律公约，约定共同出资设立联营公司即台州市路桥区浙东驾驶员培训服务有限公司（以下简称浙东公司），固定驾驶培训服务价格、限制驾驶培训机构间的教练车辆及教练员流动，涉案十五家驾培单位原先分散的辅助性服务（如报名、体检、制卡等）均由浙东公司统一在同一现场处理，浙东公司收取服务费850元。联营协议第三条具体约定了联营公司设立的注册资本与股本结构。涉案十五家驾培单位中的台州市路桥吉利机动车驾驶培训有限公司（以下简称吉利公司）、台州市路桥区承融驾驶员培训有限公司（以下简称承融公司）以该十五家单位构成垄断经营为由，诉至法院，请求确认联营协议及自律公约无效。一审法院认为，浙东公司统一处理原先分散的辅助性服务，可提高服务质量、降低成本、增进效率，其收取服务费850元并无不当，有关股本结构条款和服务收费条款可以依法适用反垄断豁免，故一审判决仅确认涉案联营协议及自律公约中构成横向垄断协议的条款无效。吉利公司等不服，向最高人民法院提起上诉，请求改判确认联营协议中股本结构条款和服务收费条款无效。最高人民法院二审认为，达成垄断协议的经营者主张适用垄断豁免的，应当提供充分证据证明其符合有关法定情形，不得在缺乏证据支持的情况下仅仅依据一般性推测或者抽象推定垄断豁免抗辩成立。违反反垄断法关于横向垄断协议规定的合同条款，与横向垄断协议条款紧密联系的条款，以及服务于横向垄断协议行为实施的条款均应属无效，否则不足以消除和降低垄断行为风险。最高人民法院二审判决，撤销一审判决，确认涉案联营协议及自律公约全部无效。 |
| ．．．．．． | | ．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials.
|
|
| |
|
|